Now lets just say up front, with the understanding that handling R&D has been accomplished. Now having said that, all those adjustment choices can also make things very complicated. Unless you want to spend hours testing yourself, but I would rather have factory drivers support to help in the process. The current design still have a huge gap for adjustments.

Personally, I have never understood Shuie design. They seem to make design way more complex than needed. No punt intended, as I've been told they handle very well, but Shuie's design philosophy seems to be if it can be done with two screws, we will make it with six. There's more than one way to accomplish the same thing, I understand it, but why make a design more complicated than needed? I would contribute it to marketing for people wanting something unique looking. I will be interesting is seeing what they do with their new car.

Personally I like a clean chassis designs. I think the designs have come down to simple, sleek, clean designed with functionality I'm an advocate of pivot toe blocks. Simple design, light, less parts count, easy to shim and looks clean. These are all things I think make it the logical choice and are standard now. As long as a part is designed without compromising strength.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lessen

I'm hoping to upgrade to a new TC maybe by spring and have spent a fair amount of time analyzing the general design of many of the current offerings. Unfortunately, many of them are extremely similar. Yes, they have minor differences I'm sure, but the general design is pretty much the same for most of them. I've been looking hard at the Shuie because I like that the inboard position of the upper links is nearly infinitely adjustable in both the upward AND downward directions, where the Xray and clones with there bulkhead mounted links have a lower limitation requiring modifying to lower if needed. Just by looking it seems the Shuie allows more fine tuning in the area of raising roll center(and camber gain) via the upper links. I simply like being able to make small link changes to get the car where I like it.

Something to bare in mind that regularly goes un-noticted as well, is diff and motor position... Line most of the cars up, and you will notice some varience between with where the motor sits, and were the wheelbases are. Obviously, you can alter the wheelbase on almost all the car's, but not one out there allows movement fore-aft of diff, and this also has an effect on handling. This was a big change between the 416WE and 416X, and was very suprising how much a difference having the diff a few mm further back made to the handling of the car.

Going back to the CF point, as samnelso pointed out, there are a lot of different grades of carbon about, but as Eric also points out, the majority of MFG's get it from the same place. That's not to say they are all buying the same thing as it's very easy to make two wildly different chassis plates in terms of flex from the same thickness material... it's really all about fibre orientation.
One key thing I've picked up on in this regard recently is actually the flex points, and how and where the car flex's... I have a theory on why some cars steer from the rear, and others from the front, but I have to do some testing first... I might post my thoughts up here if I remember

Something to bare in mind that regularly goes un-noticted as well, is diff and motor position... Line most of the cars up, and you will notice some varience between with where the motor sits, and were the wheelbases are. Obviously, you can alter the wheelbase on almost all the car's, but not one out there allows movement fore-aft of diff, and this also has an effect on handling. This was a big change between the 416WE and 416X, and was very suprising how much a difference having the diff a few mm further back made to the handling of the car.

Going back to the CF point, as samnelso pointed out, there are a lot of different grades of carbon about, but as Eric also points out, the majority of MFG's get it from the same place. That's not to say they are all buying the same thing as it's very easy to make two wildly different chassis plates in terms of flex from the same thickness material... it's really all about fibre orientation.
One key thing I've picked up on in this regard recently is actually the flex points, and how and where the car flex's... I have a theory on why some cars steer from the rear, and others from the front, but I have to do some testing first... I might post my thoughts up here if I remember

Ed

Yes I have noticed a trend as well on the flex points. I see deeper cuts placed in just in front of the battery and just behind it (or just behind front wheel and in front of the rear) like the 417. To me this would seem like the best place to get consistent flex front and rear. Now there are many factors involved, but it seems like a logical placement of flex focus points.

One design feature I must say I like is having two screws holding in the spur. It makes it so much easier to remove the spur without removing the upper deck like the BD7 and TC6. Although the compromise is added bearing weight to the pulley. It's a hard design choice and I wonder if there could be a way to get the two screw secure design, but not add bearing weight? lol

Key word is "should." But not always. Look at Tamiya, good car but $hitty aluminum. Always deterred me from buying em.

So when are the manufactures going to make the leap to titanium? It's got to be coming down in price. I remember when titanium just started to enter the rc market. Back then you had to cut your own tie rods to get them the proper length. Man has the machining process improved.

So when are the manufactures going to make the leap to titanium? It's got to be coming down in price. I remember when titanium just started to enter the rc market. Back then you have to cut your own tie rods to get them the proper length. Man has the machining process improved.

Why? Aluminum is lighter, more than strong enough if designed right and the right alloys are used, much easier to machine and much cheaper. There is no good reason to use titanium for bulkheads. Of course, it is excellent in other areas.

I think magnesium bulkheads would be better. They have been used on pan-cars before and weigh less. Except everyone would bitch about the bling factor as magnesium tarnishes and looks terrible.

3 things I wish would catch on. One, a hole in the front shock tower to mount a 5th body support.

Two, BMI racing use to make it so that when you changed the shock hole angle position that it didn't change the ride height. I don't know correct geometry, but how come this was not desired? Did it not allow for desired shock angles?

Third, BMI use to make holes in the chassis to balance a car front to rear. Why didn't this catch on?

Humm...just curious. These all sound like good ideas and easy manufacture fixes.

Why? Aluminum is lighter, more than strong enough if designed right and the right alloys are used, much easier to machine and much cheaper. There is no good reason to use titanium for bulkheads. Of course, it is excellent in other areas.

I think magnesium bulkheads would be better. They have been used on pan-cars before and weigh less. Except everyone would bitch about the bling factor as magnesium tarnishes and looks terrible.

One design feature I must say I like is having two screws holding in the spur. It makes it so much easier to remove the spur without removing the upper deck like the BD7 and TC6. Although the compromise is added bearing weight to the pulley. It's a hard design choice and I wonder if there could be a way to get the two screw secure design, but not add bearing weight? lol

I'm confused, what do you mean here? Is there a way to take the spur off an XRay without removing the top deck?

I haven't seen the ae6.1 spur but I know the top photon has 2 screws and didn't have to remove top deck but it didn't spin true with its design (plastic parts anyway).
I liked the bmi towers . That was a nice touch to change shock angles and keep ride height correct. Now given this only works with a tested weight . If they set this up on a tc car (1380g) and use them on a vta (1550) as u soften the springs by moving them in I could see ur ride height going down . Still would be great tho

Something to bare in mind that regularly goes un-noticted as well, is diff and motor position... Line most of the cars up, and you will notice some varience between with where the motor sits, and were the wheelbases are. Obviously, you can alter the wheelbase on almost all the car's, but not one out there allows movement fore-aft of diff, and this also has an effect on handling. This was a big change between the 416WE and 416X, and was very suprising how much a difference having the diff a few mm further back made to the handling of the car.

Going back to the CF point, as samnelso pointed out, there are a lot of different grades of carbon about, but as Eric also points out, the majority of MFG's get it from the same place. That's not to say they are all buying the same thing as it's very easy to make two wildly different chassis plates in terms of flex from the same thickness material... it's really all about fibre orientation.
One key thing I've picked up on in this regard recently is actually the flex points, and how and where the car flex's... I have a theory on why some cars steer from the rear, and others from the front, but I have to do some testing first... I might post my thoughts up here if I remember

Ed

Changing the layup of the carbon weave in the CF will change which way it flexes. I am not certain which ways make it the stiffest but its a combination of 3 layers and 2 angles. Like 45/45/45 or 90/90/90 or 45/90/45. Meaning each layer is laid in a different direction or angle from the previous layer to get different flex. Some will flex a LOT from corner to corner and be super stiff front to back. Others will be super stiff corner to corner but flex a lot front to back. Its all in what the manufacture recommends.

Another thing is thickness. When companies buy graphite its in say 2.4mm +/- 10%. So it can very in thickness. Most think the thinner is not as good but its not true. They use the exact same materials by weight in each sheet. Some just compress more than others. Generally a 2.4 sheet that comes out 2.3 will be stiffer than a 2.4 sheet that comes out 2.5 because of how it cured and was compressed.

Its why you see so many pro TC guys with so many chassis plates. Even though they look the same you have to actually feel them to see if they are the same.

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.2.1